On 12/15/12 01:06, Eric wrote: [---] > 4) I am not criticizing people, merely what they say. I see evidence > that they don't get where I'm coming from because they have only an > incomplete idea of what this is all about. > > 5) SCM stands for Software Configuration Management which is not the > same thing as version control. Look it up. You will possibly hate it, > but if you ever write software that can affect real lives or large > amounts of money you will need to know about it.
So "SCM" defines how rm and mv should behave? And in order to take part of these definitions, to gain a "complete idea of what this is all about", one needs to write software which "affects real lives" or "large amounts of money"? Well, I develop programs which *very* much can affect real lives, and large amounts of money is involved. No one has invited me to any secret organization where the *true* definition of "SCM" is revealed. Sorry, but I think you're being silly. You don't know any more about these things than anyone else here. Calling you an ass was a little harsh, but at the same time, you are stating that others are inferior to you, yet you present nothing of substance to back it up. I understand why people are get a little annoyed. You seem to be indicating that there's some exact definitions of an "SCM" which will resolve the rm/mv issue once and for all. Rather than to talk about affecting real lives and how much money is involved and other irrelevant nonsense, post those exact SCM definitions which are relevant to the mv/rm issues and we can judge that information directly. -- Kind regards, Jan Danielsson _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
